Is there a coherent argument that loosening zoning laws will lead to affordable housing in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

I lived in Ward 2 for five years, Ward 1 for four years, and Ward 4 for nine years before moving to Ward 3, and I take Metro daily (and used to commute by bus in some of the other areas). The point is that it's ridiculous not to allow denser development along a Metro line when there's a ton of available land for more housing here in Ward 3 if you change the laws. The availability of land for more housing in the mayor's neighborhood is irrelevant to that point, but even if it weren't, Ward 3 makes a BETTER candidate for more development because in addition to buses, we also have Metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

If you live in a part of Ward 3 that makes it inconvenient to take Metro, then there'd be less argument to build more housing near you. I'm talking about building more housing near the part of Ward 3 where I live, which is near multiple Metro stops and bus lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

If you live in a part of Ward 3 that makes it inconvenient to take Metro, then there'd be less argument to build more housing near you. I'm talking about building more housing near the part of Ward 3 where I live, which is near multiple Metro stops and bus lines.

One neighborhood that meets your description is Cleveland Park. However, also one of the few historic districts in Ward 3, which would preclude adding a ton of density that would be incompatible with historic properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

I lived in Ward 2 for five years, Ward 1 for four years, and Ward 4 for nine years before moving to Ward 3, and I take Metro daily (and used to commute by bus in some of the other areas). The point is that it's ridiculous not to allow denser development along a Metro line when there's a ton of available land for more housing here in Ward 3 if you change the laws. The availability of land for more housing in the mayor's neighborhood is irrelevant to that point, but even if it weren't, Ward 3 makes a BETTER candidate for more development because in addition to buses, we also have Metro.

Where is the "ton of land" for more housing in Ward 3, of the size that could accommodate significant projects like Fanne Mae/City Ridge? There are hardly any green or gray field sites left, unless the proposal is to contribute some public playgrounds to the GreaterGreaterDevelopment cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

I lived in Ward 2 for five years, Ward 1 for four years, and Ward 4 for nine years before moving to Ward 3, and I take Metro daily (and used to commute by bus in some of the other areas). The point is that it's ridiculous not to allow denser development along a Metro line when there's a ton of available land for more housing here in Ward 3 if you change the laws. The availability of land for more housing in the mayor's neighborhood is irrelevant to that point, but even if it weren't, Ward 3 makes a BETTER candidate for more development because in addition to buses, we also have Metro.

Where is the "ton of land" for more housing in Ward 3, of the size that could accommodate significant projects like Fanne Mae/City Ridge? There are hardly any green or gray field sites left, unless the proposal is to contribute some public playgrounds to the GreaterGreaterDevelopment cause.

The ton of land is in the existing lots, which could house far more people if it were possible to build something other than just single-family homes on them, and also in existing commercial properties along Wisconsin, some of which are one- or two-story buildings that could, instead, be large apartment buildings with retail on the ground floor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

I lived in Ward 2 for five years, Ward 1 for four years, and Ward 4 for nine years before moving to Ward 3, and I take Metro daily (and used to commute by bus in some of the other areas). The point is that it's ridiculous not to allow denser development along a Metro line when there's a ton of available land for more housing here in Ward 3 if you change the laws. The availability of land for more housing in the mayor's neighborhood is irrelevant to that point, but even if it weren't, Ward 3 makes a BETTER candidate for more development because in addition to buses, we also have Metro.

Where is the "ton of land" for more housing in Ward 3, of the size that could accommodate significant projects like Fanne Mae/City Ridge? There are hardly any green or gray field sites left, unless the proposal is to contribute some public playgrounds to the GreaterGreaterDevelopment cause.

The ton of land is in the existing lots, which could house far more people if it were possible to build something other than just single-family homes on them, and also in existing commercial properties along Wisconsin, some of which are one- or two-story buildings that could, instead, be large apartment buildings with retail on the ground floor.

If you take Cleveland Park as an example and you have an number of Victorian or Four-Square houses on 40 to 45 foot lots, how do you build something else on them (other than maybe a garage-sized ADU if it fits in the back)? It's a historic district, and you can't tear down the houses. As for the commercial strip, historic preaervcatrion might let you go up a couple of stories, but not 10 stories. Van Ness and most of Tenleytown are not historic districts, so there may be more flexibility there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, that is also an area city planners have been focusing on trying to get development and commerce into for years. But we in Ward 3 also have plenty of room to accommodate more housing and, specifically, more affordable housing.

Where are the parcels of vacant land in Ward 3?

You don’t need vacant land to add more housing in Ward 3 if you change the zoning to allow more than one single family house per big lot. You also could build new multiuse buildings that include housing and commerce on lots that currently hold unleashed single-story commercial properties.

Wouldn’t this fundamentally transform the character of neighborhoods like AU Park and Chevy Chase DC, which have quiet street with mostly single family residential ?

I don’t think adding a few townhouses or small apartment buildings would significantly alter anything, but more to the point, so what? Why should only the people who can afford to buy houses here now be able to live here? If we had more varied kinds of housing stock here, more people could move to this neighborhood.

There are other neighborhoods. I might want to live on Park Avenue or in Pacific Palisades. Should they build more affordable housing there for people like me?

There aren't other neighborhoods in D.C. that are right next to multiple public transit options and major commercial corridors (like Wisconsin and Connecticut avenues) and have relatively low density that means they could easily accommodate more housing. The city, as a whole, needs more housing and more affordable housing, and it can't all be put in someone else's neighborhood just because you don't want it in yours.

DC is riddled with major commercial corridors and transit options. Our bus system (up/down and across is excellent). You are stating falsehoods.

But most of those other neighborhoods aren’t zoned only for SFH homes on big lots, as the ones near transit and commerce in upper Ward 3 are, which means they’re already more densely developed.

And yet...they're not. The Mayor's whole neighborhood around upper 16th is hardly more densely developed than around Wis and Conn in Ward 3. Are you actually from here?

Yes, I live in Ward 3 and I grew up in the suburbs. What’s the Metro line that runs through the mayor’s entire neighborhood, like the Red line does here? And I bet lot sizes are bigger here west of the park then there, too.

I guess you don't get out of Ward 3 much. I live in Ward 3 and never use metro. Mayorr's neighborhood has tons of buses (like we do) and HUGE lots. Do you leave your block? Errrr…..

I lived in Ward 2 for five years, Ward 1 for four years, and Ward 4 for nine years before moving to Ward 3, and I take Metro daily (and used to commute by bus in some of the other areas). The point is that it's ridiculous not to allow denser development along a Metro line when there's a ton of available land for more housing here in Ward 3 if you change the laws. The availability of land for more housing in the mayor's neighborhood is irrelevant to that point, but even if it weren't, Ward 3 makes a BETTER candidate for more development because in addition to buses, we also have Metro.

Where is the "ton of land" for more housing in Ward 3, of the size that could accommodate significant projects like Fanne Mae/City Ridge? There are hardly any green or gray field sites left, unless the proposal is to contribute some public playgrounds to the GreaterGreaterDevelopment cause.

The ton of land is in the existing lots, which could house far more people if it were possible to build something other than just single-family homes on them, and also in existing commercial properties along Wisconsin, some of which are one- or two-story buildings that could, instead, be large apartment buildings with retail on the ground floor.

If you take Cleveland Park as an example and you have an number of Victorian or Four-Square houses on 40 to 45 foot lots, how do you build something else on them (other than maybe a garage-sized ADU if it fits in the back)? It's a historic district, and you can't tear down the houses. As for the commercial strip, historic preaervcatrion might let you go up a couple of stories, but not 10 stories. Van Ness and most of Tenleytown are not historic districts, so there may be more flexibility there.

The houses are charming 1920s houses though. Such a shame. My prediction is that developers would raze them and build mcmansions (still for single family) that fill the lots with little squiggles of green between. Kind of like that neighborhood by Foxhall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, don’t you, that 1500 new homes are under construction in just two blocks around Wisconsin and Van Ness? I assume that the developer is paying a special assessment to add another public school in Upper NW?

Upper NW doesn't need another public school nor does DC.

The DC Council needs to re-draw the boundaries and relocate students to the grossly under-enrolled public schools EOTP.

You obviously don't have kids. The reason there are schools that are "grossly under-enrolled" is because they are completely terrible schools that should probably be shut down. If you have kids (and if you don't have kids, you should STFU about schools) you know it's hard to find good schools in DC. Why do you think Wilson High School is bigger than many colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hear this constantly asserted, as if it were self-evidently true, but cannot figure out how it could possibly be correct.

There's 700,000 people in the District. There's 5 million in the suburbs. If you add 30,000 housing units in DC, they will instantly be soaked up by people in the suburbs looking for shorter commutes.

As people move into DC from Falls Church and Rockville and Fairfax, their old places will open up for other people. Other people will move into those places from suburbs even further out, which will open up slots in places like Chantilly or Columbia or wherever else those people are coming from and that would put downward pressure on housing prices in the suburbs they've left.

But how does any of that lead to affordable housing in DC?

It doesn't. It's all BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, don’t you, that 1500 new homes are under construction in just two blocks around Wisconsin and Van Ness? I assume that the developer is paying a special assessment to add another public school in Upper NW?

Upper NW doesn't need another public school nor does DC.

The DC Council needs to re-draw the boundaries and relocate students to the grossly under-enrolled public schools EOTP.

You obviously don't have kids. The reason there are schools that are "grossly under-enrolled" is because they are completely terrible schools that should probably be shut down. If you have kids (and if you don't have kids, you should STFU about schools) you know it's hard to find good schools in DC. Why do you think Wilson High School is bigger than many colleges?

Actually I do have kids - one already through Wilson with another 2 years behind.

When we moved to Ward 3 more than 20 years many people in Ward 3 didn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools at all and among those who did many pulled their kids after ES or bailed for the suburbs.

Hearst and Eaton were almost entirely OOB and even Janney and Murch (which had half of todays enrollment) had significant OOB populations and Hardy's entire student body used to be OOB.

The biggest determinant of how good public schools are is the SES of the families who attend them.

There are now a slew of Upper Middle class families living EOTP who could easily be moved to public schools in their own neighborhoods and that would immediately solve the crowding issues in Ward 3 and those student bodies would be just as wealthy as Deal & Wilson.

So yeah why don't you STFU - my kids attended Deal & Wilson when both were actually a lot more diverse than they are today and way more diverse when your snowflakes will arrive in a few years.

And this is why I get really pissed about this - both schools are rapidly losing the diversity they used to have which no doubt pleases johnny come latelies to Ward 3 like you - the only way these schools can retain any economic diversity is if the large block of upper class kids who are currently concentrated there get split out into another school cluster and then both clusters can actually accept more low income OOB students.

The current dispute about the Deal & Wilson boundaries isn't a fight between upper class Ward 3 parents and lower income families from Wards 7 & 8 - it is a dispute between upper class Ward 3 parents and upper class Ward 4 parents from Crestwood and Mt Pleasant and Shepherd Park who should be attending public schools in their own neighborhoods.

The boundaries need to be re-drawn regardless.

And Ward 3 should have more population density on its commercial corridors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The houses are charming 1920s houses though. Such a shame. My prediction is that developers would raze them and build mcmansions (still for single family) that fill the lots with little squiggles of green between. Kind of like that neighborhood by Foxhall.

I can't imagine a lot of circumstances where a boulder wouldn't make more money replacing 1 unit with 2 units (or 3 or 4) - if it were allowed, and if the demand is there. And the demand is there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, don’t you, that 1500 new homes are under construction in just two blocks around Wisconsin and Van Ness? I assume that the developer is paying a special assessment to add another public school in Upper NW?

Upper NW doesn't need another public school nor does DC.

The DC Council needs to re-draw the boundaries and relocate students to the grossly under-enrolled public schools EOTP.

You obviously don't have kids. The reason there are schools that are "grossly under-enrolled" is because they are completely terrible schools that should probably be shut down. If you have kids (and if you don't have kids, you should STFU about schools) you know it's hard to find good schools in DC. Why do you think Wilson High School is bigger than many colleges?

Actually I do have kids - one already through Wilson with another 2 years behind.

When we moved to Ward 3 more than 20 years many people in Ward 3 didn't send their kids to the neighborhood schools at all and among those who did many pulled their kids after ES or bailed for the suburbs.

Hearst and Eaton were almost entirely OOB and even Janney and Murch (which had half of todays enrollment) had significant OOB populations and Hardy's entire student body used to be OOB.

The biggest determinant of how good public schools are is the SES of the families who attend them.

There are now a slew of Upper Middle class families living EOTP who could easily be moved to public schools in their own neighborhoods and that would immediately solve the crowding issues in Ward 3 and those student bodies would be just as wealthy as Deal & Wilson.

So yeah why don't you STFU - my kids attended Deal & Wilson when both were actually a lot more diverse than they are today and way more diverse when your snowflakes will arrive in a few years.

And this is why I get really pissed about this - both schools are rapidly losing the diversity they used to have which no doubt pleases johnny come latelies to Ward 3 like you - the only way these schools can retain any economic diversity is if the large block of upper class kids who are currently concentrated there get split out into another school cluster and then both clusters can actually accept more low income OOB students.

The current dispute about the Deal & Wilson boundaries isn't a fight between upper class Ward 3 parents and lower income families from Wards 7 & 8 - it is a dispute between upper class Ward 3 parents and upper class Ward 4 parents from Crestwood and Mt Pleasant and Shepherd Park who should be attending public schools in their own neighborhoods.

The boundaries need to be re-drawn regardless.

And Ward 3 should have more population density on its commercial corridors.

Are you for real? You sent your kids to Deal and Wilson? Two of the most desirable schools in the city? And you think that other people in poorer neighborhoods should be forced to send their kids to Garbage High? Something you never deigned to do? In hopes that their mere presence will magically transform those schools? Please. You're as bad as the people who don't have kids opining on schools. If you don't have skin in the game, you should stop talking.

[Anonymous]

I am the public finance lawyer poster on this thread who’s posted a few times. There is an article in the WaPo today re affordable housing programs and the effects they can have on families that are very hard to quantitatively state. In this article, a formerly homeless family received qualified for a transitional housing program that allowed the children more stability and the tween girl had extremely positive changes (better grades, more friends, positive extracurricular activity, increased happiness). These are huge and very important positives things society needs for young adolescents to help them on a positive path in life, all of which decrease this child and other children’s risk of alcohol or drug abuse, teen pregnancy, Suicide/ depression, dropping out of high school, becoming incarcerated. But the transitional housing program has strict limitations and no safety net to help these people achieve permanent housing so when the parent, who was doing everything she was supposed to do, made “too much money” she was kicked out of the program and faced being homeless again. The mother could not find another apartment in the same school district or anywhere in DC for which she qualified or that she could afford. So the family could only find one in PG County, and the poor tween will have to switch schools, lose her friends, her teachers, her extracurricular and start all over, again.

These are important stories to read, they put real people in real circumstances in your head. Changing single family zoning will not help these people. These are the people that need more affordable housing, these are the people on the brink of homelessness, who fall in the repeated cycle of never getting ahead. It’s not against the law to be poor. But we should be honest what affordable housing really is and not just claim to be progressive and liberal all while washing our hands and minds of true housing problems. These are your janitors, your health care aids, your food service workers, etc. Who literally have no where to live. Who have families. These are the people we need to worry about, and their children who will one day grow up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/an-11-year-old-uprooted-from-a-gentrifying-city-sometimes-moms-cant-afford-things/2020/01/13/d5219068-32f6-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-low_kamiyah-1130am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans

[Anonymous]

Changing single-family-detached house zoning will not help people who were formerly homeless and earn too much for transitional housing.

It will help lots of other people, though.

So let's do change single-family-detached house zoning AND increase the supply of housing affordable for people who earn too much for transitional housing and need permanent housing.